Thank you for a clear and crisp reflection.

Simply, essentially,we need the clergy...from top to bottom...to COMMUNICATE THE WORD in all its simplicity and beauty.

The Popes have not been the only guilty parties in their inabilities or refusals to communicate or share....individual cardinals and bishops must share in the blame.

There needs to be a global realisation..and acceptance...that we are ALL part of the royal priesthood....even if we don't share in the finery!

Perhaps if the clergy reflected on what's meant to be the Pope's highest title...servant of the servants...they'd begin to understand the message of Jesus.

Honesty is certainly a must..together with a vow to stop putting words into His mouth.

Our concern is with the horror and sadness of AIDS and the totally unchristian attitude of those who would refuse lifesaving protection...especially within marriages where a spouse is HIV infected.

We invite you to visit our website at www.aids.net.au

Some may want to help us help. That'd be appreciated.

Brian Haill,
President,
The Australian AIDS Fund Inc.,
PO Box 1347, Frankston, Victoria,3199,AUSTRALIA
Email: bhaill@bigpond.net.au

With the Vatican about to elect a new pope, what should the world be hoping for....An Atheist!

Kenny :)

Well I'm hoping for a humanist - however I suspect linking the Vatican to humanism is creating something of an oxymoron.

You speak so eloquently regarding honesty with the Pope, yet you want the Church to be dishonest when it comes to the great command that Jesus had for all to go out in the world and tell of the Good News. Pope John Paul II was very true to his beliefs, and the Word as it is written. The Church did wrong years ago when it tried to be "more relevant". Relevancy does not mean to disregard the Word, it means to make the Word more appealing to the current generations. That is a big distinction.

When I came to Australia from a Communist (and atheist) country in 1968 I was pleasantly surprised to find it not a religious but a highly tolerant and civilised country. Now, watching from Germany, I am surprised to see how many secular fundamentalist "suicide terrorists" there are who " blow up" themselves, (and those who are in contact with them), fortunately only verbally. Another surprise comes from the fact that in Germany, certainly a more secular country than Australia, the recently deceased pope has been attacked and ridiculed not so much by atheists as by some Catholic theologians and activists who want to replace the dogma of the pope's infallibility (on matters of theology) by a dogma of their own infallibility.

Where to start?

I never cease to be amazed by the capacity of various writers to dream up such nonsensical drivel.

writes: "It should be eminently reasonable for the United Nations to have voting rights in papal elections"

Huh? So, does the UN having rights in Australia's or any other member country's democratic processes? No. So why is it "eminently reasonable" for them to be involved in electing the pope? What a ridiculous argument.

Re Galileo, it is not surprising to hear the commonly held revisionist view that the Popes resisted Galileo's science. Until the trial against him, Galileo stood in high esteem among the Holy See, the Jesuits and especially the popes of his lifetime. His teachings were celebrated. Upon Galileo's visit to Rome in 1611 Pope Paul V welcomed him in friendly audience, and the Jesuit Roman College honoured him with various ceremonies. Galileo's first written statement in favour of the Copernican system, his Letters on Sunspots, was met with much approval and no critical voice was heard. Among the cardinals who congratulated Galileo was Cardinal Barberini, who later became Pope Urban V111 and would sentence him in 1633. In fact, Urban even wrote an ode to Galileo. In 1615, an accusation against Galileo was filed but denied by the Court of Inquisition. From 1615 till 1632, Galileo enjoyed the friendship of many cardinals and the different popes.

Galileo fell foul of the church for personal and political reasons. It had nothing to do with science or religion. See A Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the
Universe."

I do agree though that sexual predation of children within the papal domain be handled "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence". Indeed, homosexuals who are intent on joining the priesthood in order to gain easy access to young boys should be flatly refused entry to seminaries and those already in the church should be thrown out.

I agree with Mr Haill that "Honesty is certainly a must"

Therefore, if aid organisations are really concerned about the horror and sadness of AIDS, then they need to be honest and admit that the Vatican's and the Pope's view that abstinence before marriage is the ONLY 100% safe method of sex. They also need to admit that organisations who push condoms as the only way to defeat AIDS have not only failed dismally, but have actually made things worse and are effectively complicit in the infection of, and death of, millions of people many of them, children - especially in Africa.

For an example of what I mean compare countries with the worst HIV infection rates like Swaziland and Botswana, where condoms are pushed, and Uganda, with the lowest infection rate resulting from their ABC program - Abstenace for singles, Being faithful for marrieds, and Condoms for already infected.

ABC worked so well that Dr Edward C. Green, prominent AIDS adviser and medical anthropologist from Harvard, wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: "I said it in my 2003 book that the single most important behavioural change (in Uganda) was fidelity, and most of that is marital fidelity". "The second change is the proportion of youth engaging in sex -- that went down in a big way." He adds: "Twenty years into the pandemic, there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS."

Africa imports about 700 million condoms a year with the help of international agencies, yet they have 25 million people with AIDS.

University of California Professor Norman Hearst, who has studied infection rates in condom-happy countries such as Kenya and Botswana, warns that pushing condoms and the safe-sex message so hard encourages people to be promiscuous, thinking they're protected.

Condom pushing aid organisations need to admit that they are dismal failures who are complicit in the death of millions. People involved in such organisations really ought to hang their head in shame.

Interesting post Aslan, now could you 'please explain'

a) just how you would achieve 100% abstinence before marriage?
b) what relevance does your post have to do with the selection of a new pope?

Thanks

Xena,

the Pope is getting 'blamed' for the ravages of AIDS and many of the liberal commentators and condom pushing agencies are hoping the next Pope will relent and throw fidelity out the window. Sorry, that's not going to happen, nor is 100% abstinence before marriage, but, the goal of it is still worthy of consideration depsite individual failings.

As regards the original "over-population" scare-mongering article, people aren't the problem, it's western lifestyles that denude & spoil our environment. Malthusian principles don't hold water when we act responsibly. A household of 2 adults and 6 children uses less water than 2 gay guys, so who are YOU going to get rid of?

Well China with it's 1.2 billion is fast taking up our consumer habits and India with a billion people will shortly make the west's contribution to world pollution seem miniscule.
If we don't destroy this planet through pollution;population pressures will see us fighting over even scarcer resources in the near future.It will only take one idiot with a nuclear weapon.
Our economies don't work too well without cheap supplies of energy.Our food production,manufacturing,construction industries,need economies of scale to produce affordable products,and use enormous amounts of energy.

Contraception in poor countries will make the world a safer place for them and us.There may be fewer Catholics born,but at least they will have a chance of achieving a more comfortable life style.

Aslan, how can you say that "Therefore, if aid organisations are really concerned about the horror and sadness of AIDS, then they need to be honest and admit that the Vatican's and the Pope's view that abstinence before marriage is the ONLY 100% safe method of sex" when it is clearly obvious that some of the 25 million people in Africa who have AIDS are married?

TheShat questions the utility of abstinence before marriage in stopping AIDS because "some of the 25 million people in Africa who have AIDS are married".

Regarding abstinence, I was talking specifically about young unmarried people. Abstinence before marriage is only part of the solution. Uganda (which is the only African nation to reduce its AIDS infection rates) uses a 3 pronged ABC program: Abstinence before marriage, Being faithful for MARRIED COUPLES, and Condoms for those already infected or in high risk groups.

So then you admit that abstinence before marriage is not the only %100 method of safe sex as you earlier claimed.

TheShat says: "So then you admit that abstinence before marriage is not the only %100 method of safe sex as you earlier claimed."

No. What I actually said regarding young unmarried people, was "abstinence before marriage is the ONLY 100% safe method of sex."

Regarding those already married, the ONLY 100% safe method of sex is marital faithfulness.

To put it another way, if an unmarried virgin remains such until married then there is almost no chance of them contracting HIV/AIDS. Only other possibilities are due to accident (very unlucky), infected blood transfusion (very unlikely these days due to screening), or needle-sharing when taking intravenous drugs (which is just plain stupidity).

If you're married and both of you are clear, then you won't catch HIV/AIDS (disregarding accidents and other stupid behavioru) if you remain faithful to each other.

If you don't believe me, just look at Uganda. The results speak for themselves...

That argument also ignores babies born to mothers infected. You have a %25 chgance of getting HIV if your mother was infected during pregnancy.

The website for the Uganda AIDS commision is very interesting. http://www.aidsuganda.org/faqs/index.htm I conceded it does mention safe sex, but it also mentions condoms and birth control. Clearly not something Pope John Paul II would condone, nor our new Benedict 16th. I think Colin's argument is valid in that someone with that blinkered a view about procreation should not have a vote in the UN.

TheShat said: "That argument also ignores babies born to mothers infected. You have a %25 chgance of getting HIV if your mother was infected during pregnancy."

If you remain faithful, you won't get infected during or before pregnancy!

For those who are already infected but want children then they are taking that risk. If they don't want children then there are condoms which is what I stated earlier.

Even then, your faith in comdoms is too great. A recently published meta-analysis of comdom effectiveness showed that they offer only 85% protection against HIV/AIDS. ie. you still have 1 in 6 chance of becoming infected. Russian Roulette anyone?

Anyone as naive as yourself and Colin certainly shouldn't have a vote in the UN. Thank goodness you don't!

Aslan - talk about naive!
"If you remain faithful, you won't get infected during or before pregnancy."

A woman can remain faithful to the one partner all her life and still contract STD's. Do I have to spell out how?

Your ignorance coupled with your narrow world view is truly astounding.

Go back to school, learn about life. I think Humanities and Biology would be a good start.

Ambo,

The only way a faithful woman can contract STIs is through her (unfaithful) partner. Hence my point that married couples remain faithful.

Your ad hominem comments do nothing to change the facts.

In Uganda, the ABC program has worked (and is now being adopted by other countries).

In countries which have relied on condoms, STIs have sky-rocketed. ie. they don't work. QED.

Aslan
Fact 1: Rubbers assist in the prevention of STD's - not perfect but better than nothing.

Fact 2: Expecting all human beings to remain 100% faithful if in relationship or 100% celibate if single is to be out of touch with the reality of human nature - hence the 'ad hominem' suggestion to study humanities.

Unfortunately the newly elected pope is unlikely to be any more enlightened than you. However, I would be interested in your reaction if Benedict does do a backflip on condoms.